Re: Modern History and the Brzhona, etc.

[Frank George Valoczy <valoczy@vcn.bc.ca>]

I understand and would have to agree with much of what Padraic says, But:
Were there not some war second war in Europe, and hence no Cold War, there
wouldn't be a cold war, because what the founders of the Sobjeta
Rrwspwvlyka wanted would have come true, and Europe would all be Soviet
states.  Unless of course someone had the foresight to see what the
Soviets were planning, and something like the EU and NATO were formed, but
with only European nations as members, because there would have had to
have been some togetherwork between the Western Europeans to safeguard
themselves against Soviet expansionist ideas.  So, whether the US exists
*there* or not, whether WWII happened or not, the USSR does (or did) 
exist, and
therefore Soviet/Russian expansionist ideas do as well, which, if we want
to maintain our culture and heritage, must be countered.  

On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Padraic Brown wrote:

> I need some help understanding some of the things that are happening /
> have happened in the history of *there*, especially regarding Frank's post
> on post1945 Brzhona history and Andrew's reply thereto.  I'd also like to
> rant a bit on why I think it's unlikely.  Mind you, I liked Frank's
> history up to and including the 1918 section -- it was an innovative and,
> quite frankly, unnexpected turn of events. 
> 
> The way I _remember_ learning modern history *here*, moving backwards in
> time is something like the following sketch:
> 
> The Cold War, between the USA and the USSR as they exist *here* is more or
> less a result of tensions between the two countries following WWII.
> The Cold War is also due to the fact that the USA built the Bomb (and had
> the cojones to use it).  At the time, the only other country close to
> having one was Germany, but the USA had their scientists (at least some of
> them), and that certainly helpped.  I don't recall by what mechanism the
> USSR got it, but it may have been a willing action on the part of the USA.  
> Therefore the Cold War is caused and/or exacerbated by WWII.
> 
> WWII is essentially caused by Mr Hitler's mucking about in Poland,
> Czeckoslovakia, Rhineland, Saarland, etc. and otherwise making a big
> nuisance of Germany. The USA was dragged into it (not completely
> unwillingly, as the country had the Depression to get out of) through
> unremembered mechanisms, but undoubtedly due to being allied with GB and
> France, two of Mr Hitler's prime targets.
> 
> Mr Hitler, and therefore WWII, are eventually caused by the Treaty of
> Versailles in which Germany essentially had to pay for the whole of WWI,
> and give up the gun.
> 
> WWI was caused by Lord only knows how many little things; USA intervention
> caused by German Dirty Tricks on the high seas (aka submarine warfare).
> 
> USA bloodlust, the desire to kick some German butt, and the nascent
> tendency to stick its nose into Everyone's business was probably caused by
> the victory over Spain (1898), the Great White Fleet, T. Roosevelt, etc. 
> 
> ...skip a bit...
> 
> The USA was caused by Great Britain in the mid 1770s, essentially.
> 
> Britain was in a position to do all of this because a) they had hegemony
> in the Islands and b) they had the Empire (or at the very least, a
> nascent Empire).
> 
> &c. &c. &c.
> 
> The point is that the USA is intricately involved in all of this history; 
> and Britain is a Powerful (if diminutive) country.  I still do not buy any
> class of USA-like country developping *there* that could do things that
> the USA have done *here*.  I do not buy a British Empire *there* that
> could do the things they did *here*.  I don't accept any of this for the
> simple reason that Britain *there* did _not_ have Ireland, Scotland and
> Wales under its thumb to provide the basics of Empire building: 1) men for
> cannon fodder, navy, colonisation; 2) industry (Wales, Scotland, NI); 3)
> shipping capability (Scotland, NI).  I do not see how England by itself
> *there* could provide for what Britain provided *here*.
> 
> I also am not convinced by the argument that History has a particular
> "script" that will be played out regardless of the universe we peek into.
> That is; we have changed a _vital_ ingredient in world history (keeping
> the British British).  The effects upon later world history _must_ be
> farther-reaching than simply having some nice folk west of the Pennines
> who speak Romance instead of Celtic or English.
> 
> You can try to convince me otherwise, but I really don't see how you can
> justify a world like ours *here* existing *there*.
> 
> Do you see my reasoning?  No Britain = no USA = no WWII = no Bomb = no
> Cold War, etc.
> 
> There are (nearly) endless possibilities for what could happen *there*; I
> just don't see how nearly carbon-copy events could transpire in two
> places...it reminds one of too many 'Captain Kirk finds yet another
> Parallel Earth' episodes on Star Trek. 
> 
> My tupenny-hapenny worth.
> Padraic.
> 
> 

-------ferke
Ferenc Gy. Valoczy

                      Es to pilni'gi noliedzu!

personal page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/7482/
railways page: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3976/
conlang page: http://members.tripod.com/~tuonela/

                    Zaradi politicnega delovanja
                             je oblast
                            v letu 1982
                            razpustila:
                              Svobodo

                             (Laibach)